Schroedinger's Prisoners

|

Apparently, the State Department doesn't think the Taliban are terrorists. You'll have to figure out for yourself what this makes those prisoners at Gitmo who were dubbed "Al Qaeda or Taliban."

NEXT: The East Is Orange

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  1. “Schroedinger”

    Not really a spelling nazi, I just like to correct people . . .

  2. If the browser weren’t so uncooperative, I’d use the spelling with the umlaut…

  3. Schr?dinger.

  4. To be fair, I’m not sure that engaging in guerilla warfare against the armies that defeated you is terrorism. In fact, I’m sure it’s not. Nasty, unpleasant, oppressive when they were in power, terrorist-harboring yes, but as a rule, the Taliban aren’t terrorists.

  5. To be fair, I’m not sure that engaging in guerilla warfare against the armies that defeated you is terrorism. In fact, I’m sure it’s not.

    RCD, cleanup in aisle 5.

  6. It depends on how they behave. The basic requirements to be recognised as a legitimate guerilla are in Geneva III, Article 4/A/2&6 (and possibly – stretching a point in this case – 4/A/1&3). The restrictions are somewhat looser in the first Additional Protocol (Article 44/3). Neither the US nor Afghanistan are party to the Protocols, but most of the other nations providing troops are, and would have a difficult time, I think, applying the stricter standard.

    There’s also the question of the US’s legal status, since Afghanistan has a recognised and functioning (cough, cough) national government. For example, the provisions of IV/64 relating to changes in the penal laws of an occupied territory in the interests of security would not be applicable since the US is not an Occupying Power.

  7. I’m not sure that engaging in guerilla warfare against the armies that defeated you is terrorism.

    I’m actually sure it isn’t. However, bombing civilians and such probably qualifies.

  8. I could be wrong about this, but I understand that the State Department listing refers to INTERNATIONAL terrorists. The Taliban seem pretty content just to muck about in their own back yard.

    Also, people aren’t interred in Gitmo under the designation “terrorist,” but “illegal enemy combatant,” which, as the hawks constantly remind us, extends all the way down to soldiers in the army of the then-government of Afghanistan who didn’t have a flag on their “uniform.”

  9. “However, bombing civilians and such probably qualifies.”

    Remember the “decapitation” strike on the restaurant in Baghdad at the beginning of the Iraq War? Bombing civlians is perfectly kosher, apparently, as long as you think there’s a pretty good chance you might get an enemy commander, too.

  10. …which is not to imply that all of the civilians killed by the Taliban in this war were targetted under such circumstances.

    International terrorists or not, they are a pretty nasty bunch.

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.